| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.51 am
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on what he referred to as his "presentation"; it certainly was. He presented his constituency most ably. He will be able to contribute his obvious knowledge, and I should think experience, of local government to future debates, and I am certain that he will be listened to with interest and respect.
I shall now leave the Rochdale area, to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions. Why did she not feel it necessary to make a statement to the House yesterday, when the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons was published? Many matters have come before the House since the new Government came into office, but this one affects every hon. Member considerably. I make this speech to draw attention to some aspects of the report in debate before the House rises, and to make more people aware of them.
I have some good news and some bad news; I start with the good. I am delighted that the Committee, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, was able to present a unanimous report. I am pleased because it confirms several of the reports, awaiting action, produced by the Procedure Committee under my chairmanship. In addition, some new thoughts have been brought into consideration. Most important, however, all members of the Committee agreed that the object of the report was to improve the standard and the thoroughness of legislation that is passed by Parliament.
Some of the new considerations are interesting. First, the Government are willing to publish draft Bills, and the report recommends that there should be some pre-legislative scrutiny of those Bills before they are introduced to the House. Secondly, there might be a First Reading committee to consider that legislation before its Second Reading in the House.
Thirdly--repeating a recommendation by the Procedure Committee--there should be greater use of the Select Committee procedure for Standing Committees, which should be able to investigate aspects of a Bill and cross-question witnesses about it before proceeding with the usual Standing Committee amendment and consideration of the Bill. Those are all efforts to ensure that legislation passed by the House is better understood, and less open to error than it may have been in the past.
The next matter of considerable importance is that, at last, we have a sensible recommendation on the programming of legislation. I have argued for many moons that Oppositions of all parties are mistaken in their belief that long debate in Standing Committee, forcing the guillotine to be introduced, does anything to limit the progress of a Government's legislative programme. At no time since the war has a Bill introduced in the Gracious Speech not been approved legislatively during a full Session of that Parliament, unless a general election has shortened the Session.
Most people have not understood that, when a Bill goes into Committee upstairs, the Leader of the House and the officers supporting the Leader of the House have set a date when it must leave Committee, so that its passage may be completed to a reasonable timetable. When the Opposition have spent days--sometimes up to 100 hours--debating the first few clauses of a Bill, the Government have had to introduce a guillotine to ensure that the Bill was before the House for Report by the date that they had in mind.
If that is the case, in order to avoid wasting time in Committee, why not let Members know the period that the Bill can remain in Committee? That would allow the Committee to decide how best to use its time, so that it might debate every major clause. The Procedure Committee has advanced that argument for many moons, and I am delighted that the Government and the Modernisation Committee have adopted that concept.
I hope that, starting in November--I shall discuss the date later--we shall conduct an experiment. Immediately after Second Reading, the Government will produce--we hope by agreement through the usual channels--an idea of the date when the Bill will leave the Committee. It will then be left to the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide how the hours shall be devoted so that all clauses may be properly debated.
That must have considerable advantages in producing legislation that is better understood and has been thoroughly examined. It will ensure that legislation does not go to the House of Lords that has been only partially considered in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
We seldom pay tribute in the House to the Clerks who serve on Committees. The Principal Clerk at the Table may be embarrassed if I mention him by name, but a paper that he produced was helpful to the House, and Mr. David Natzler, the Second Clerk, has done immense work in producing papers for us. They deserve particular credit.
May I be controversial? I am sorry that the Committee did not start by dealing with Prime Minister's Questions. There is a major arrogance in how the Government altered Prime Minister's Questions without consultation--they are now held only once instead of twice a week. The House has already heard me on this matter, but I shall continue to press it. It is wrong that matters that arise after Cabinet on a Thursday cannot be put to the Prime Minister until the following Wednesday. The Prime Minister talks about wanting to be democratic and pays tribute to the work of the House, but he arrogantly casts the House to one side. We must return to the matter before long.
I have another little hobby horse: I am delighted that we are moving in the direction of modernising the names of Committees so that they describe what Committees do. A Standing Committee does not stand; nor does it last the whole of a Parliament, but only for one Bill. Its sole purpose is to deal with the Bill before it, so I do not understand why it should not be called a legislative Committee. I am glad to say that we shall return to that matter in due course.
I urge the House to pay attention to the report. Will the Leader of the House guarantee today that she will introduce the necessary alterations--there are not many--to Standing Orders so that we can begin this experiment? We should not have to wait until February or March, but should start the experiment in November. The Committee can then monitor it correctly and report to the House on its success in June or July.
I gave the Leader of the House notice of a question that affects the south-west in particular: the improvement of the A30-A303 road links between London and Exeter. Within the "Wessex link", as it is termed, decisions have been made about the run between the north and south of the A36 and A46, which affects the Swindon bypass. I do not wish to argue about those decisions.
However, approval has been given and money earmarked for improvements to the A30-A303 from Marsh to Honiton. The hairpin bends on that road make some aspects of the grande corniche in the south of France look like Woolworth. They are dangerous, and an accident black spot. We need to progress with that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Government do not delay the matter.
Parts of the main link road between London and the west are just single carriageway on both sides. I shall not bother the House by listing them all, but four areas are set for approval, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will press for improvements, which will benefit the tourist industry. Tourism is the biggest industry and the biggest
earner in the south-west, so that link road is of the greatest importance. Will she carry that message to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister who heads that Department?
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
I rise to make my maiden speech and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to do so before the welcome summer recess. I understand that convention demands that my maiden speech should be non-controversial, which may be difficult; that I describe in glowing terms the delights of my constituency, which I am happy to do; and that I offer generous praise to my predecessor, which I am also happy to do--within reason.
May I take those three themes in reverse order? I am happy to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Durant, who represented my constituency of Reading, West from 1983 to 1 May this year. In total, he served the people of Reading for more than 23 years, having first entered Parliament as the hon. Member for Reading, North, which in those days was considered a genuine marginal seat. Incidentally, the good people of Reading have been thoroughly confused by the machinations of the various boundary commissions, which have over the years tended to favour boundaries that benefited the Conservative interest, despite the long and proud Labour tradition of the town of Reading that stretches back to the days even before our most famous parliamentarian, the late and missed Ian Mikardo.
My first conversation of note with Tony Durant, as he was then, was in the summer of 1986--two years after I was elected to Reading borough council and some two months after I became chair of the leisure committee. It was not so much the conversation that stuck in my mind, although if I remember rightly we were discussing the forthcoming general election--from our respective political bunkers we both agreed that it was good that we would be contesting different seats and not fighting each other--as the venue. It was the backstage beer tent at the Reading festival. That would not have been remarkable had it not been for the decision of the previous Conservative-controlled council to scrap the rock festival in 1984 and 1985.
At that time, I learnt two important lessons from Tony Durant: first, he took absolutely no notice of the absurd and unpopular actions of his Conservative council colleagues, which is presumably why he was re-elected to this place long after they had all been wiped out in the council chamber; secondly, he was a man who liked people. Moreover, he was a man who liked people who like drink. He was and still is a convivial and sociable man, in marked contrast to some of the humourless robots who are, I am afraid, too often a feature of British politics.
However, Sir Anthony was not always a pillar of political consistency. He fought the 1974 election opposing the Reading rock festival--that was before he discovered the backstage beer tent--and in 1992 he spoke out against the planned Tory pit closures only to vote in favour of them in December of the same year.
Sir Anthony Durant and I share a common interest: a love of the rivers and canals of Berkshire and the Thames valley--Sir Anthony, appropriately, from the cabin of his boat; I, also appropriately, from the muddy river bank fishing for fish more often than I ever fish for votes. We have both spoken out against the decline in our region's rivers, Sir Anthony on over-extraction from the beautiful little River Pang, which has almost been destroyed by the greed of the privatised water companies, and I over the decline of the River Kennet and the River Thames through pollution and threats to develop the watermeadows and over the disgraceful dumping of radioactive effluent by AWE Aldermaston.
Sir Anthony was a hard-working and well-respected constituency Member. His announcement that he planned to retire and not contest Reading, West at the last election persuaded me to seek the Labour nomination for the seat. Although a majority of 13,000 might seem daunting, a good proportion of that number represented Sir Anthony's personal vote, which could not be considered the property of the Conservative hopeful, one Nicholas Bennett. That proved to be the case.
My last conversation with Sir Anthony--I trust that there will be many more--was a month or so after the general election. He was in fine form and from the twinkle in his eye it seemed that that former Government Whip and undoubtedly loyal Conservative was not too unhappy about leaving this place or seeing the unpleasant Mr. Bennett soundly defeated.
I hope that there is no parliamentary convention that obliges hon. Members to speak in glowing terms of their political opponents at a general election. The Leader of the House is not scowling at me, so perhaps there is not. Never in my 25 years in politics have I encountered such a bigoted, bumptious and unpopular individual as Nicholas Jerome Bennett, the would-be Conservative Member for Reading, West, former Member for Pembroke and junior Welsh Office Minister in the last Thatcher Government.
I found it remarkable that when I arrived at the House I received a warm welcome from senior members of all political parties, some of whom are sitting on the Opposition Benches today. They welcomed me not because they knew me or had a particular interest in the internal politics of Reading, but because they had been spared the awful prospect of being lectured and hectored by that individual for the next five years.
In case hon. Members are wondering what they are missing, I shall outline a few of the policies that I will not be supporting and which would have been put forward had Labour not won the seat of Reading, West. They include the wholesale privatisation of the national health service, the removal of the right of council tenants to act as jurors--after all, we cannot have poor people judging rich people, can we?--outlawing abortion and thereby forcing rape victims to go through the agony of giving birth to their assailant's child, removing child benefit from families whose children get into trouble at school--that proposal was condemned by the Bishop of Reading--and branding all homosexuals as immoral and evil.
The list goes on. If it has a familiar ring, that is because it is the manifesto of the hard-line, right-wing No Turning Back group. I trust that that political doctrine was well and truly buried on 1 May 1997.
I shall deal now with my constituency and the town of Reading as a whole. It may be a town, but in reality it is a city and deserves city status as the capital of the Thames
valley. Four years ago, the council, of which I was a member, led the campaign for Reading to be granted city status. We hope that that wish will soon be realised.
Reading has an impressive history, sometimes a bad press but a great future. The early settlements grew up at the junction of the Holy Brook and the River Kennet. The Domesday book records that we boasted six mills, five fisheries and a nunnery, which I am sure was useful. In 1121, Henry I founded Reading abbey. Later in that century and in the centuries that followed, Reading was a regular venue when Parliament assembled outside London, often because of plagues in London. I offer Reading as a venue should we get round to rebuilding this place and need a temporary venue for our Parliament.
Elizabeth I granted the town its first royal charter. A mayor was appointed--not elected--and was served by burgesses, but, for the life of me, I do not know what they were or what they did. The civil war was disastrous for Reading. The town changed hands several times from king to roundhead, much like today's two-party politics. The 18th century brought an improvement in communications. The canal was completed from Reading to Newbury and the roads were improved and became a great coaching route to Bath.
The 19th century witnessed the growth of industry--beer, biscuits and bulbs--the three Bs for which Reading became known. These great companies were Simonds the beer, Sutton's the bulbs and Huntley and Palmer's the biscuits. Sadly, only beer remains but I can commend a pint of Courage Best to anyone in need of either a hangover or a laxative.
Reading has attracted bad press, despite its wonderful location at the junction of two rivers in the heart of the Thames valley and on the edge of the Chilterns. In his classic book "Three Men in a Boat", Jerome K. Jerome said of the town:
Reading is a town with a tremendous future. It is a popular place to live. In a recent survey it was voted the eighth best town in which to work and play. It is in the top 25 per cent. for average household earnings. It has a high degree of economic activity. It is in the heart of silicon valley and generates new jobs in the high tech and communications industries. It has superb sports and leisure facilities and, of course, its famous festivals. It has a lively town centre.
We may have a bad press from time to time, but we have good local newspapers. I am pleased that the Reading Chronicle has emphasised its pride in Reading and has recently launched a Pride in Reading campaign which highlights the growing night life in the town and our new football stadium, which Reading football club will move into next year. Our local team was only four minutes away from glory in the premiership until we lost against Bolton, but perhaps we should not dwell on that for too long.
We have prominent local business activity in firms such as Microsoft, Prudential, Yellow Pages, Foster Wheeler and Digital. An ever-growing number of firms are keen to
invest in Reading. Work has started on our £200 million Oracle shopping development. We have pride in our town and our weekly newspaper reflects that, as does our daily newspaper, the Reading Evening Post, which has sponsored many campaigns such as our successful empty homes strategy.
The main argument that I want to advance this morning is the urgent need not just to modernise the arcane workings of the House but radically to overhaul our entire political system. It is a matter of debate whether we need to mark the millennium with a PVC-coated dome, but I am sure that we need to equip our society for the 21st century with a new politics, new political structures and a political system that connects with the public and their aspirations.
We need a political system that is modern, relevant and efficient and which encourages people from all walks of life to put themselves forward for public office. Not to make the change, not to have the courage to pursue the radical constitutional and political agenda, will result in further decline in the reputation of Parliament and of politics and politicians in general. For many of us, the nightmare scenario is an American political system with a 50 per cent. turnout and an increasingly alienated and disfranchised electorate.
It will not be easy for me or my party, with its large majority, to pursue the agenda of political reform with vigour. In my heart, I am a tribalist. I know the songs, the slogans and the war dances of party politics. In my head, however, I know that the two-party system has had its day. It is confrontational, absurd and often irrelevant. No party has a monopoly on truth, progress or good ideas.
I urge the Government to pursue the pluralist agenda further. I for one welcome the involvement of the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet process and the more controversial involvement of Mr. David Mellor in our new football task force, but those are just small steps down a very long road.
The vision was set out by the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. John Smith. He said at our party conference in Brighton in 1983:
There is a powerful case for electoral reform. It will herald a more consensual style of politics, develop the pluralist agenda and reflect more accurately the wishes of the British people at the ballot box. However, I see no sense in having different electoral systems for Scotland, Wales, Europe and Westminster. The acid test for any electoral system is that it is easily understood by the people who use it. I also favour the retention of the constituency link. That is why I will not get involved in esoteric arguments about the rights and wrongs of different systems of proportional representation. Those systems that retain the constituency link--between the Member of Parliament and the people he or she represents--are the systems that we should support.
There is no case at all for the existence of a second Chamber based on the hereditary principle, 75 per cent. of whose Members are there by accident of birth. They had the temerity to inflict 350 defeats on the last Labour Government. During my short time in this place, I have learned that the other place will not inflict 350 defeats on this Labour Government. I believe that there is a case for reforming the second Chamber, but not for its abolition.
I turn now to the reform of the House of Commons. I remind hon. Members--particularly my colleagues on the Government Benches--of the statement in the Labour party policy document "A New Agenda for Democracy", which says:
However, there is much more work to be done. I hope that we can have advance notice of business. If my whip for 27 October can tell me roughly what I will be doing in three months' time, I hope that, when Parliament is sitting, we can have some idea of what we shall be doing in three weeks' time--if only to allow us to plan our activities as Members of Parliament and our liaison with constituents. I suggest that the conduct of debate should be regulated and that some sort of time limit should be imposed--except on maiden speeches, of course.
I am happy that there are Privy Counsellors, but should they be privileged Members of Parliament? Should they really have the opportunity to prevent other hon. Members from participating in debates in this Chamber from time to time? As for the voting system, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had with senior Members who defend the Lobby system, which they say presents an excellent opportunity to meet Ministers. I am sure that Ministers really want to hear from 400-odd members of the parliamentary Labour party at five past 10, 11 or 12 at night. It is not an effective way of putting our constituents' cases to Ministers and it is not a good use of our time. I hope that the Government will consider electronic voting, proxy voting and other measures that will make our parliamentary lives more efficient and make us less of a laughing stock.
If we dispense with the Lobbies and the Lobby system, I hope that we can extend the Chamber so that it is less confrontational and there is a seat for every Member. I hope also that the Government will examine the hours of work. Most hon. Members have better things to do at 10 or 11 o'clock at night than join in the club atmosphere of this House and traipse through the Lobbies.
There is also the question of the role of Back Benchers--particularly in light of the Government's massive majority. It is regrettable that early-day motions are merely political graffiti. When a third of hon. Members sign an early-day motion--particularly if there is cross-party support--is there not a case for allocating parliamentary time to discuss that obviously important issue on the Floor of the House? We could go much
further and talk about fixed-term Parliaments. I would certainly support any move to outlaw holding local authority elections on the same day as a general election. That emasculates the work of local councils and does not afford a true reflection the electorate's wishes as to whom they want to represent them in Parliament and whom they want to run their councils.
"We came in sight of Reading about eleven. The river is dirty and dismal here. One does not linger in the neighbourhood of Reading."
Other commentators have described our town as the most boring and average town in Britain and as a dull, dirty and uninteresting place. That is simply not the case, as I am sure Sir Anthony would agree. Our detractors are blinkered or out of date.
"We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution for a new century. I want to lead a Labour government that will introduce the most radical package of constitutional reform ever proposed by any major political party. This I believe will be the battleground of the 1990s as we define the new politics of a new century. Our choice--Labour's choice--is to build a democracy founded on pluralism, participation and justice."
I hope that the new Government will have the courage to turn into reality the dreams and vision of the late John Smith.
"There is no doubt that the role of the House of Commons is central to realising the objective of creating the bedrock of a pluralist democracy in the UK, and that as the millennium approaches we need to prepare a legislature fit for a new century."
I welcome the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. We are now to have a much improved Order Paper: it is no longer in code and I hope it is understandable to hon. Members and to the public. I welcome the suggestions regarding fuller involvement in the legislative process and better timetabling of Bills.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |